Many people like their steak "rare and bloody." Is that a problem? Is it okay to consume animal blood?

Blogs |
Nov. 18, 2012

Are Christians Forbidden to Consume Blood?

Jimmy Akin

A common objection to the Catholic faith is the idea that the Bible forbids the drinking of blood, yet Catholics claim to drink the blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

It's true that the Old Testament forbids consuming blood, but what is the status of this requirement for Christians?

Soon we will look at drinking Christ's blood specifically, but here let's look at the Old Testament prohibition on consuming animal blood . . .

Animal Blood as Food

Neither Christianity nor Judaism are vegetarian religions. Both acknowledge the possibility of eating animals. Biblical Judaism even mandates it, with the requirement of consuming the Passover lamb.

But what parts of an animal are okay to eat?

Here in America, we are used to eating the flesh of various animals--the muscles or "meat." But there are other parts, including the organs, the bones (which can be ground up as meal), and the blood.

Often, if you don't grow up eating something, it will make you squeamish.

I'm pretty adventurous for an American. I enjoy a lot of international foods. I not only will eat sushi (raw fish) without batting an eye, I'll even eat durian-flavored foods (note: the smell of durian is indescribable; the closest thing I can compare it to is burning rubber).

But as an American, I personally find the idea of consuming animal blood an incredibly squeamish idea.

I mean . . . YUCK!

Different Strokes for Different Folks

I have to acknowledge, though, that people in many other cultures--including Christian ones--feel differently.

Animal blood is consumed in various ways, either as an ingredient in foods or as a beverage.

This includes countries all over the world--in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa.

Blood was certainly both an ingredient and a beverage in the ancient world.

So what does the Old Testament have to say about it?

Eating Blood in General

Eating blood was forbidden in the Law of Moses. For example, Leviticus and Deuteronomy state:

Leviticus 17

10 If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

11For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.

12 Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.

13 Any man also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust.

Deuteronomy 12

23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.

24 You shall not eat it; you shall pour it out upon the earth like water.

The Blood Is the Life

Both of these passages cite a reason why blood is not to be eaten: The blood is the life of the flesh.

The Leviticus passage adds an extra note: "I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life."

This indicates the purpose for which the children of Israel are permitted to use blood: It is to be offered to God in sacrifice.

This offering of blood to God is similar to the way that fat was also reserved to God:

Leviticus 3

16 And the priest shall burn them on the altar as food offered by fire for a pleasing odor. All fat is the Lord’s.

17 It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.

Both fat and blood were thus seen as reserved to God in sacrifice.

This raises a question . . .

Does This Still Apply Today?

It's clear that the way God wishes us to sacrifice has changed. No longer do we offer the blood (and fat) of bulls and goats.

Instead, Christ has sacrificed himself on the Cross once for all, and today he perpetually offers himself in heaven and through the sacrifice of the Mass.

With the change in the manner of sacrifice, one might suppose that the requirements concerning blood and fat in the Old Testament have also passed away.

A Natural Law Requirement?

One could maintain that the requirements are still in effect if one could find a basis for them in natural law--that is, a reason why it is contrary to human nature to consume blood or fat.

That would be difficult to do.

In the case of blood, there are such things as blood-borne illnesses which could be contracted, particularly by eating uncooked blood, but not all blood is infected.

Further, there are also food-borne illnesses in general, which can also be contracted, particularly by eating uncooked food.

The case of fat is even harder to argue, because fat is one of the principal sources of calories in our food (the other two being proteins and carbohydrates). In fact, fat is the most calorie-rich (and most flavor-enhancing) of the three.

This points to something else, which also applies to blood: Meat is shot through with both fat and blood.

No matter how carefully you trim away the fat, some fat remains in the meat. If it doesn't then the meat is tough and unappetizing. It's the fat marbling in the meat that is part of what makes it taste good.

Similarly, no matter how carefully you drain the meat, some blood remains in it.

Without the use of industrial processes that were unavailable in the ancient world (and in any ordinary kitchen today), there is no way to eliminate all blood or fat from meat.

That suggests that what we're dealing with here is symbolism.

Blood as Symbol of Life

It's clear that blood makes a good symbol for the life of the flesh.

Today we know why flowing blood is essential to living organisms: It's what brings the things cells need (nutrients, oxygen) in order to maintain their metabolic life processes.

They didn't know that in the ancient world, but they did know that if an animal didn't have blood flowing through it's veins, it wouldn't live, and if you drained the blood from an animal (or a human, for that matter), it would die.

There is thus a fitting basis for the symbolism of blood as the life of the flesh.

But if this is symbolism then it won't automatically carry over into the dietary requirements of the Christian age, any more than other Old Testament ritual practices do.

God Speaks to Noah

There is, however, one Old Testament passage that a person might appeal to as an argument that it would. After the Great Flood has subsided, we read:

Genesis 9

1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.

2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered.

3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

4 Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

This gift of meat is said to be made with Noah and his sons, and you could suppose that it--together with the requirement not to eat blood--applies to all mankind.

Certainly some have taken it this way, particularly in the Jewish community.

However, this is not necessarily the case.

Note that the gift of meat found in vv. 3-4 is distinct from and precedes the covenant that God establishes with Noah, his descendants, and all living creatures (cf. vv. 9ff).

One could take the gift of meat in this instance as something that God gave Noah and his sons, but it applies to later peoples in different ways.

In particular, the prohibition on blood in v. 4 may be intended for the children of Israel, as a reminder to them, without addressing whether it applies to other peoples, just as the sabbath is referred to in pre-Mosaic times as a reminder to the children of Israel, without implying that other peoples were expected to keep the sabbath. (They weren't.)

We then can't settle the question from this passage by itself and need to turn elsewhere for more information . . .

Jesus Speaks

In Mark's Gospel there is a passage that has a bearing on this question:

Mark 7

18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him,

19 since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

Jesus here is articulating a general principle that what comes into the body from outside does not defile us morally. (Instead, the evil thoughts that come from within us do).

This applies both to dirt on our hands (what Jesus was talking about in the original context) and to foods (an implication Mark draws out).

Mark thus points out that Jesus' statement implies that all foods are, in principle, clean. Eating them does not defile a person.

That would include foods made with blood, for there were such foods in the ancient world, just as there are now.

The Jerusalem Council

The dispute about what foods could be eaten continued for some time in the early Church, with different Christians taking different positions.

To help keep peace between Jewish and Gentile Christians, the Council of Jerusalem issued a pastoral directive: "that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:29).

The reason for this is explained by James: "For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues" (Acts 15:21).

It would thus help Jewish Christians if Gentile Christians refrained from certain things thought to violate the Mosaic Law.

We know from other passages, however, that such things were not automatically wrong in and of themselves:

Some, such as unchastity, were.

Others, like food sacrificed to idols, were not, though even St. Paul could recommend refraining from them when it would cause another to violate his conscience (1 Cor. 8:4-13).

So which category does blood go in?

The Church Reveals the Answer

We've already seen that it's not possible to avoid eating blood, since some always remains in the meat.

We've seen that the basis of the blood prohibition involves symbolism and is linked to Jewish sacrificial ritual that has passed away.

And we've seen that Jesus articulated a principle that would result in all foods being clean, apparently including the ancient ones made with blood.

If these are not enough, however, there is the practice of the Church down through the centuries.

Blood has been eaten in many Christian lands for the last twenty centuries, without the Church prohibiting this practice.

If God guides the Church, as he does, then we can look to this to settle the matter.

Thus the Pontifical Biblical Commission noted in 2008:

The other example is more delicate: “You must not eat any fat or any blood.” (Lev 3.17; 7.26; Deut 12.23–24); the New Testament takes up this prohibition unrestrictedly, to the point of imposing it upon Christians coming from paganism (Acts 15.29; 21.25).

From the viewpoint of exegesis the explicit reason for this prohibition is not exactly theological, it rather reflects a symbolical representation: “the life (nepheš) of all flesh is in the blood” (Lev 17.11, 14; Deut 12.23).

After the apostolic era the Church did not feel obliged to make this a basis for formulating precise rules for the butcher and the kitchen, and still less in our own times to prohibit blood transfusion.

The trans-cultural value underlying the particular decision of the Church in Acts 15 was a desire to foster the harmonious integration of the various groups, albeit at the price of a provisional compromise [The Bible and Morality].

So though, as an American who didn't grow up consuming foods made with blood, I find the idea of eating blood utterly unappetizing (to say the least), it is not forbidden by Catholic moral theology or practice.

“Care to give examples of “extra-biblical sources?”
Indeed. For terms and teachings not at all in scripture, but which are Catholic dogma. (Dogma = ‘Agree with it or head for the stake.’) Immaculate Conception [of Mary]; Trinity, EXCEPT for 1 John 5:7,8- discredited as I have noted; Pope; Christmas; Easter (in the KJV but not the Douay; Mass; God the Son; more, if I had time. All enforced over the centuries by torture and murder.
The “extra-Biblical” sources for these are commonly known; ask your priest. Or visit CCEL.org or similar sites to read the “Fathers and Doctors” who came up with them long after “your” canon was set.

Posted by Brianna on Tuesday, Dec, 18, 2012 7:25 PM (EST):

Care to give examples of “extra-biblical sources?”

Posted by Doug on Tuesday, Dec, 18, 2012 6:21 PM (EST):

Brianna, Amos had something to say about ‘understanding God’s plans for us’: “For the Lord God does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.” Amos 3:7, and the previous verses emphasize the idea. Jesus also had a similar task: “No man has seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the Bosom of the Father, he has declared him.” John 1:18 And at John 18:37: “For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth.” And at John 17:3: “Now this is eternal life: That they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” Would Jesus say that such knowledge is a matter of life and death while knowing that we are bound not to get or understand it? Never may that be so!
It seems to me that Jehovah intends us to know everything we need to know to serve him properly. Isa 55: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.” His thoughts and ways should be above mine, otherwise why am I trying to serve him? But how can I serve properly without adequate information? The Jews had 600-some commandments on the topic; I have Jesus and his scriptural expositors. They have served me well.
I’m aware of Catholics’ feelings about the Eucharist and respect their desire to draw close to God, but I find too much of the doctrine coming from extra-biblical sources. Acts 20:29-31; 1 John 2:18. (“even now ...”)
BTW I usually refer to Jehovah’a “purposes”, not “plans”. You and I make plans that may not come to fruition; Jehovah is not so limited. That’s what his name means. Cf. Isa 55:10,11.

Posted by Brianna on Tuesday, Dec, 11, 2012 1:12 PM (EST):

Let me clarify my last comment, I did not mean that Catholics believe we’ll become divine, just that we will be in union with God and each other. Catholics believe that during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, we are part of the Communion of Saints, and are in union with everyone else at Mass anywhere in the world, with the saints in heaven, and with God. We will also be in that union for eternity when, and if, we reach heaven. Mysterious? Quite, but that is often the case with God’s plan. Again, refer to Isiah 55:9 for proof that God is to far above us for us to completely understand Him, or His plans for us. And this is not taking the quote out of context. Protestants might do that, but the Catholic Church does not.

Posted by Brianna on Tuesday, Dec, 11, 2012 11:57 AM (EST):

This brings up another interesting Catholic belief. Catholics believe that we will be united to God through the Eucharist, in a similar way to how God the Son is united to God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit. So it makes perfect sense that it is the same corporate oneness used in both insistencess. The translation of the Bible I quoted from is similar enough to the other translations for it to be used, although, you are right, there are better translations. I prefer using the Ignatius bible, but I’m missing my copy right now.

Posted by Doug on Thursday, Nov, 29, 2012 7:51 PM (EST):

Brianna:
#1- You quote John 10 and John 17 together even as I often do, showing that Jesus is NOT the same person as his Father ... unless you agree that John 17 shows that Peter, Matthew and the rest are also the same persons as Jehovah.”One” in John 10 must be the same as “one” in John 17- one in spirit and mind, as all true Christians are in unity. That is why Jesus is able to refer to Jehovah as “the only true God” (John 17:3), to refer to Jehovah as “my God” (Rev 3:12), and to be portrayed even now as subservient to Jehovah. (Rev 14:14) . Your plea that “the true Biblical doctrine of the oneness of God expresses His corporate unity” has no basis in scripture, and no sense or logic that I can see. Rev 3 and 14 are scriptures reporting events in John’s future- our present. ‘Corporate unity’? Not even now.
#2- “It is clearly seen from the above words of God’s Son Jesus that He and the Father are two persons.” I agree; two, with two names, one with authority over the other down to this day, as seen in the Bible cites above.
#3- Have your teachers not informed you that 1 John 5 quote comes from fraudulent Bible translations dating back 400 years or more? That this version has been discredited by modern trinitarian scholars? That the proof of this is found at e.g. your Jerusalem Bible, your New American Bible of 2011, your NAB of 1970, the NIV and NASV of your fellow Trinitarians on the Protestant side? The three witnesses are “ the [fn] Spirit, the water and the blood”, and John wrote not that they are “one”, but that “the three are in agreement.” Your teachers have left you to cite a doctrine that was discredited at least back to Edward Gibbon’s time.

Posted by Kathleen on Wednesday, Nov, 28, 2012 11:30 AM (EST):

I know this is an older thread but I just read this news article online:

Polish ritual slaughter illegal, court rules

“Poland’s top court has ruled that the religious slaughter of animals is illegal, weeks before an EU law allowing the practice takes effect.”
Full article through link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20523809

Posted by Jeff Moore on Saturday, Nov, 24, 2012 3:33 PM (EST):

I can accept the idea that the prohibition on blood was an act of the Church’s authority, which was since lifted at the Council of Florence. Thanks for the pointer!

Posted by Brianna on Saturday, Nov, 24, 2012 9:25 AM (EST):

Catholics believe that Jesus was not only present at the table of the Last Supper, but also in the very bread and wine they consumed, in fact, the bread and wine was no longer present, just Christ Himself. Yes, this is a mystery, God is mysterious. We may know Him better in Paradise than we do here, but we will never completely understand Him. God is truly amazing.

Posted by Brianna on Friday, Nov, 23, 2012 10:47 PM (EST):

Doug, by the way, transcendent means beyond and outside the ordinary range of human experience or understanding, or the unknowable. And omnipresent means to be present everywhere at once.

Posted by Brianna on Friday, Nov, 23, 2012 9:48 PM (EST):

Doug, have you heard the term omnipresent? We believe in God having the ability to be present in multiple places at once, and in fact, we believe that God is EVERYWHERE, and present in ALL THINGS.

Posted by Brianna on Friday, Nov, 23, 2012 9:32 PM (EST):

Doug, why don’t you look at the biblical quotes that this site has to offer that proves The Holy Trinity?

Posted by Brianna on Friday, Nov, 23, 2012 9:29 PM (EST):

Doug, I am unaware of what JWs believe, do you believe in the Incarnation? If so, how do you suppose you can explain that? I mean really, the divine becoming human? Explanatory anywhere with human reason? And how can you explain the fact that a Being existed before a previous creator? And if your explanation is that there was a continuous line of creators, each created by the previous creator, can you explain how that can be the case? Isaiah 55:9 “For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts exalted above your thoughts.” God is not explainable, he is transcendent.
A site I found says, ” Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: - Deuteronomy 6:4

The Hebrew word for “God” is “Elohim” which is a plural. The Biblical Hebrew word for “one” in the above passage is “echad” which is a corporate oneness, not merely a numeric count. God is a plural number of persons yet one. The word one as “echad” is continually used in referrence to the one true God throughout the Holy Scriptures.

A clear example of the meaning of the Hebrew word “echad” may be also found in the celebration of the Jewish Passover. The three-pocketed matza holder used during Passover is referred to as an “echad”. Consequently, it is the middle of the three matzas that is broken during the ceremony. The Holy Trinity of God and the brokenness of the Second Person of the Trinity are clearly revealed in this ancient tradition. The “echad”, the one true God, is the Holy Trinity.

The true Biblical doctrine of the oneness of God expresses His corporate unity. Jesus is one God with His Father. This is what Jesus meant when He said, “I and my Father are one.” (John 10:30).

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: - John 17:20-22. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. - John 8:17-18

If God the Father and His Son Jesus are not two persons, neither can they be two witnesses. It is clearly seen from the above words of God’s Son Jesus that He and the Father are two persons. Together with the Holy Spirit the three are one.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. - 1 John 5:7.”
Please look at this site for more information: http://www.dokimos.org/trinity/main.html

Posted by CathDisciple on Wednesday, Nov, 21, 2012 8:25 PM (EST):

And what big words did I use? Trinity?

You still continue to dodge John 6 and 1 Corinthians in its full context which connects the cup of the Lord and the last supper. And get your greek right… Rev 1:5 says:

“and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth”

Posted by Doug on Wednesday, Nov, 21, 2012 8:01 PM (EST):

CathDisciple: “a mystery as to how God is in three persons”
That’s the view of you and your Church*. Jesus did not come to mystify us (“No man has seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the Bosom of the Father, he has declared him”). In prayer to his Father he said, in language we can understand: “Now this is eternal life: That they may KNOW you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” John 17:3, any Bible.
“the sacrifice was the next day on Calvary, not at table in the upper room”; ‘point NOT already made’, you say. Just when did Jesus die at Roman hands? Were the soldiers hiding in the closet during the meal? My Bible identifies the site of his execution as one “Calvary” aka ‘place of the skulls’. The disciples ate the bread from the platter and drank the wine from the cup ON the table. Jesus was AT the table, unharmed. That’s what your Bible says. You say otherwise.
If he/they/it is a “mystery” then we can’t know Jesus and his Father, which means we can’t have the everlasting life promised us. Was Jesus a practical joker? I think not (although you’ll no doubt disagree). As in my earlier posts, my “witness” is not myself, but the same one your Bible refers to at Rev 1:5. “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the first begotten of the dead and the prince of the kings of the earth, who has loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and has made us a kingdom, and priests to God and his Father.”
Note the language of your translators: “the faithful witness ... “prince [not king] of the kings of the earth ... priests TO [Jesus’] God and his Father.”
I’ve quoted your God now and earlier in referring to Jehovah as his Father, the ONLY TRUE GOD, who assigns tasks to him, who sends him on errands, and so on. Do you have perhaps a secret Bible- Dan Brown’s, maybe- that says otherwise? Give us a look into it, please. Otherwise …
If you believe ‘you gave us the Bible’ then please use it. Otherwise, don’t deny it to those of us who love it, respect it and use it.

*There is a technique of disputation used by those who wish to confuse rather than edify their listeners: Use big words and abstruse doctrines so as to sound authoritative. It’s called mystification. Not a Bible teaching; it’s part and parcel of the magisterium, as I’ve said. BTW I know of any number of Catholic publications which claim to explain an identify the Trinity god. A good motto: Eschew obfuscation. :-)

Posted by Sharon on Wednesday, Nov, 21, 2012 7:33 PM (EST):

ecky thump - Do you like The Goodies Jimmy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJxGi8bizEg

Posted by CathDisciple on Wednesday, Nov, 21, 2012 2:26 PM (EST):

I was wondering the same thing. The Church is the largest charitable giver on the planet. And there is no reads / should read. Both are given Catholic principles. Power to bind and loose (Matthew 18), caring for the poor (Matthew 25). They don’t compete. Need to stop taking an either/or approach to Scripture.

Posted by Kathleen on Wednesday, Nov, 21, 2012 2:22 PM (EST):

Trebert,
Could you clarify? How do you get the 2nd statement from the first?
Thanks.

Posted by Trebert on Wednesday, Nov, 21, 2012 11:50 AM (EST):

Reads: “The Church has the authority to bind and loose both on matters of doctrine and on matters of disciplinary practice.”

Should Read: The Church has the responsibility to minister and serve all people regardless of race, color, or creed!

Where have we gone wrong?

Posted by Douglas Wallace on Tuesday, Nov, 20, 2012 8:59 PM (EST):

Thank you for the college level course in apologetics. To quote a higher up in the U.S. government: “That information is above my pay grade.” Now allow me to enjoy my very rare steak with blood that flows with every slice of my knife. Try to imagine biting into a hamburger made WITH NO blood or fat?? Taste and texture of beef flavored sand??

Posted by CathDisciple on Tuesday, Nov, 20, 2012 4:07 PM (EST):

@Jeff Moore… and this is the most important of points, that of authority. Once the Church decides, we are bound to follow (Matthew 18:18). Sadly, this has been lost on many.

Posted by Deadstop on Tuesday, Nov, 20, 2012 1:39 PM (EST):

Jeff Moore: The Church has the authority to bind and loose both on matters of doctrine and on matters of disciplinary practice. That the Council of Jerusalem forbade the consumption of blood for the sake of the consciences of Jewish Christians does not mean that such a prohibition could never be lifted later. (We don’t see a later mention of blood, but Paul later mentions meat sacrificed to idols as okay to eat as long as one is careful not to harm the conscience of a Christian brother, so it appears that at least some of the rules laid down at Jerusalem did not outlive those who were present.)

For hundreds of years, lay Catholics in the Latin Church did not receive the Eucharist under the appearance of wine, because a council had decreed they should not in order to battle a heresy which claimed that one had to receive both bread and wine to receive Christ. That prohibition remained in force for a very long time, but was eventually overturned for the Ordinary Form at least. That doesn’t mean, though, that it wasn’t an authoritative rule during the time it was in force.

Posted by CathDisciple on Tuesday, Nov, 20, 2012 8:32 AM (EST):

Trebert, remanance theory was a theory put forth by Wycliffe in the late 1300’s and is incompatible with the teaching of the Church on the consecration that takes place at Mass. You can find more about it in Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma which covers the basics of the dogmatic teachings of the Church.

As to your question, it does matter what the priest says because the priest is making the change occur. Whether we respond or not has no impact on the substance of the Eucharist. It has an impact on our reception of grace. Who to blame? Clearly, the recipient. St. Paul says “For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain.” (1 Cor 15:9-10)

God gives grace out of free gift. It is the recipient’s responsibility to cooperate with grace and to accept or reject that grace. The same goes for the Eucharist. It is there present to us, made so by the consecration whether we respond or not. If you do not respond, you have received it in vain. Which is why St. Paul also says “whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of The Lord.” (1 Cor 11:27) What you are saying is that if you don’t respond (i.e., are receiving in an unworthy manner), the Eucharist does not change substance. If true, then what St. Paul says makes no sense. You can’t profane the body and blood if it is not yet present.

In fact, we have a very early story of martyrdom about a man names Tarsicius. Tarsicius was carrying the consecated Eucharist from one part of Rome to another. A group of non-Christians approached and demanded he give it up to be desecrated. He refused and died protecting It. Again, he wouldn’t have done that unless it were real at the moment he was in posession. Hopefully you come to see that while our reception of the Eucharist has an effect on us, it has no effect on the Eucharistic presence.

Posted by Trebert on Tuesday, Nov, 20, 2012 1:48 AM (EST):

CathDisciple,

Remanance theory? Unable to locate this definition anywhere. However if it is only a theory. It really doesn’t matter what the priest says if the recipient doesn’t respond or change as a result of it than who do we blame?
God, the priest or the recipient?

Posted by Cormoropolus on Monday, Nov, 19, 2012 9:56 PM (EST):

Sort of a strange way of dealing with this question…. I think Dr. Hahn does a much better job.

Posted by CathDisciple on Monday, Nov, 19, 2012 9:51 PM (EST):

@Trebert, if you are suggesting that the substance of wine and bread persist after consecration, this is known as remanance theory and it was firmly rejected by the Church at the Synod at London and the Council of Constance in 1418. The consecration takes place when the priest says the words of institution. It is then the Body and Blood of Christ from that moment forward. Otherwise, we would not place the unconsumed remnants in the tabernacle afterwards. It does not change upon your acceptance, it changes upon the institutional words of the priest acting in persona Christi.

Amen to your citing the agnostic. We SHOULD drop to our knees but the lack of respect by some towards the Eucharist does not disprove Its reality any more than the rejection of Christ by the Jews disproves Jesus is the Son of God.

Posted by Trebert on Monday, Nov, 19, 2012 9:15 PM (EST):

The article missed an all important opportunity to address and ask THE question regarding consuming the body and blood of Christ.

The host and wine consumed during the celebration of the Eucharist remains regular wine and a piece of unleavened bread until we decide to respond and become changed through it.

The story is told of an agnostic who witnessed such a celebration and concluded ‘If that actually was the bread and body of Christ shouln’t people be falling all over themselves with joy and expectation’.

Posted by CathDisciple on Monday, Nov, 19, 2012 8:21 PM (EST):

“Jesus was in three places at table at the same time? I don’t think so.”—You don’t think so, but you are placing restrictions on God. It is also a mystery as to how God is in three persons, but Christians don’t question that.

Point not already made, Jesus links the Last Supper to his sacrifice in the form of the Passover Seder. The two are very connected. Any faithful Jew would recognize the Last Supper as a form of the Seder that was left unfinished until Jesus said it was finished on the cross. Nice try ignoring John 6, however.

Which “modern witnesses” did you cite? Yourself. You just said “I don’t think so”. You can “cite” Scripture all you want, it is still your intrepretation versus that of the earliest witnesses. Sorry that I am confused as to which of the 33,000+ supposed truth traditions you are coming from. If the Bible explains itself quite nicely, why so many denominations?

Ignatius as post apostasy? Then you have no Biblical legs to stand on. I would be interested in how you know that the Gospels were written by who they say they are without Ignatius and the Christian witnesses who followed. You can’t disregard the infallibility of the Catholic Church with respect to the Canon of the Bible and also deny the historical writings that attest to which Gospels are real and which are aprocrypha. Unless you claim to be Pope Doug, of course.

Posted by Doug on Monday, Nov, 19, 2012 8:10 PM (EST):

BTW folks, I’m attempting to keep to the OP topic, using [your!] scripture. The one “bloody sacrifice” was AFTER the meal in the upper room; it had to involve blood because Jehovah had set aside blood as the key element of the living body*. That was enough for Paul, certainly, an expert on the Law. Heb 9:11,12,22,23,25-28; which ends (Douay) “So also Christ was offered ONCE to exhaust the sins of many.” Actually all of Heb 9 & 10 are of use to a modern Christian seeking to understand these most important types/antitypes.

*There are other organs of human physiology in this ‘without which death’ category: heart, skin, liver et al. Jehovah chose the blood.

One more point: I recognize from many places besides this one that the Eucharist and the Assumption are cherished beliefs of Catholics. You have my permission to believe in them :-) and most of you will. But if [your] Bible has any value as “the word of God” then perhaps He thinks otherwise. Y’all are free to re-examine. I mean, y’all don’t belong to a cult, right?

Posted by Doug on Monday, Nov, 19, 2012 7:53 PM (EST):

Your “eucharist” is as I showed from my ‘table setting’- symbolic at the first. (Jesus was in three places at table at the same time? I don’t think so.)
“Jesus’ words at the last supper make no sense apart from the sacrifice.” They make perfect sense as given to us, since the sacrifice was the next day on Calvary, not at table in the upper room. [Point already made, BTW]
“the witness of the early disciples over your more modern interpretation”
Which ‘modern witnesses’ did I cite, please? These old eyes count nine cites in my post, all Biblical, all Jews after Noah. If you insist that “you” gave “us” the Bible, please use it in replying to scripture, or base your exegesis on it.
I get as knotted up by Catholic statements as poor Mary Irving, above. But the Bible explains itself quite nicely, as a follower of Christ should expect. John 17:17
Ignatius? Paul and John said that opposers to true worship would come from within, and in fact had already come. (That’s 100 CE at the latest.)

Posted by CathDisciple on Monday, Nov, 19, 2012 6:48 PM (EST):

@Doug Better study scripture AND history a little more. You say God’s word precedes the Catholic Church. If by God’s word you mean the Bible, you are wrong. Christ did not establish the Bible, he established the Church (Matthew 16). The Church (being the first Apostles) wrote scripture and then put it together in its current form about 300 years later. Where in the Bible does it tell you what the Bible is? The father of the New Testament canon is St. Athanasius in the mid-300s. The term Catholic Church? Used in 107 AD by Ignatius of Antioch in a way that surely notes it was in common usage earlier (likely apostolic times). And Ignatius was most-probably a disciple of John.

As for Eucharist as symbol, this is more than I can write here. Jesus’ words at the last supper make no sense apart from the sacrifice. He is the Lamb of God which is the Paschal Sacrifice and calls us to eat of the Eucharist in remembrance. But to a Jew, remembrance meant to make present or re-present. You also might want to learn a little greek. In John 6, John/Jesus use two different words to describe eat. John 6:51 uses phage which means to eat. When the Jews object, Jesus does not back off, he becomes more literal. In John 6:54, He uses trogon which means to gnaw or chew. To add historic insult to injury, it is also Ignatius of Antioch in 107 AD which steps up to proclaim your view as heretical.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death9 in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of11 them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.”

Sorry, but we Catholics tend to accept the witness of the early disciples over your more modern interpretation.

Posted by Doug on Monday, Nov, 19, 2012 5:15 PM (EST):

Annemarie: “Any advice or any tips on dealing with JW?” Yes. Read my post above, look up and meditate on the scriptures, and then study your own Bible. That’s all we ever ask. Really. Not many choose the narrow road. (All my quotes are from the Douay.)
“bread of life discourse ... never forced his Apostles”: That’s correct about Jesus; how could it not be? He was a perfect Jew as well as a perfect man. (1 Peter 2:22) Else how could he have ransomed us from the sin of the perfect man Adam? (‘Life for life’; Romans 5, 6)
Consider also that Jesus himself did not obey literally his own “command” in the so-called Last Supper: Jesus sits here; the other eleven sit there and there and so on; the communal cup over here; the platter of bread over there. The people all partake of the food; no pain or bleeding reported on the part of Jesus. No bloody sacrifice there, it took place the next day. Therefore the meal symbolized the actual sacrifice. Why go literal later, after the real sacrifice was made and applied to believers? No need, is there?
“resources on refuting those claims [on the tetragrammaton]” Refutation? Your own scholars understand that YHWH or JHVH is God’s personal name, not a title. See your Jerusalem Bible at Isa 42:8 and thousands of times elsewhere.
Here’s a better subject for research: What is God’s kingdom, and what can we expect from it if the Paternoster is answered? (“Thus therefore SHALL you pray ...”)
Read this quickly; scriptural responses tend not to last long on Jimmy’s site. :-)

Posted by Doug on Monday, Nov, 19, 2012 5:15 PM (EST):

Akin: “In particular, the prohibition on blood [Gen 9:4] may be intended for the children of Israel, as a reminder[?] to them, ... just as the sabbath is ... (They weren’t.)”
Genesis: No “children of Israel” until Abraham, in Genesis 17.
God’s word: Gen 9:4 is indeed a “prohibition” or command.
Gen 2:3 No Sabbath command, as at Gen 9; no connection between pre-Law seventh day and the Law Sabbaths (pl.) which were specifically stated. Therefore blood and the Sabbath not related topics. However, from Noah (Gen 9:5) to the Law (Lev 17:11) to David (2 Sam 23:17) to Jesus’ actual, bloody sacrifice, ‘blood is the life’- says the Creator of life; all I need to know. What about you?

Akin: “And we’ve seen that Jesus articulated a principle that would result in all foods being clean, apparently including the ancient ones made with blood.”
At Mark 7 Jesus was a Jew speaking to Jews. Issues to be settled by the new Christian congregations, ‘a great mixed crowd’, was how much of the Law, if any, was to be retained. The one such issue was settled: circumcision of the flesh no longer required of the “Israel of God”. (Acts 15:19; Gal 6:16) The other issues were of longer standing: idolatry, fornication, and blood. Note that blood is mentioned twice. First as food (“refrain ... from things strangled” or roadkill, which is unbled by any standard) and then in the broadest most general sense: “refrain ... from blood.” Can we reason that transfusion is NOT ‘taking in blood’? Transfusion as a medical treatment goes back at least to medeival times, when it was like Russian Roulette. Nowadays it is one of the most deliberate of medical procedures: extracted, typed, filtered, tested, administered in a hospital setting.
Akin: “Blood has been eaten in many Christian lands for the last twenty centuries, WITHOUT THE CHURCH prohibiting this practice ... AFTER the apostolic era the Church did not feel obliged.” Indeed. But Akin brought in God’s word, which precedes the Catholic and other churches, and is obligatory. (Rom 3:1,2)

Posted by True Democrat on Monday, Nov, 19, 2012 5:01 PM (EST):

I don’t see why drinking blood should be a problem, except for various infections. It certainly is not a moral problem as Catholics drink the blood of Christ every Sunday.

Posted by Hegesippus on Monday, Nov, 19, 2012 3:22 PM (EST):

The Council of Florence lifted the condemnation of the consumption of blood.

Posted by Mary Irving on Monday, Nov, 19, 2012 2:19 PM (EST):

Actually, you are not drinking Jesus’ Blood when you receive the Eucharist. You are receiving Jesus: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - an entire Person. The separate consecration is important because it represents the death of Jesus. Howver, when the priest says, “This is My Body,” it is the entire Jesus Who comes down on the altar. The same is true when the priest says,” This is My Blood.” If I said to you, “Give me your hand,” the rest of you would come with it. The same is true at the Consecration.

Posted by Mary Irving on Monday, Nov, 19, 2012 2:12 PM (EST):

Actually, you are not drinking the Blood of Jesus when you drink from the cup. You are receiving Jesus: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - an entire Person. The separate Consecration is important to indicate that it represents the death of Jesus. However, although the words “This is My Body” call forth only the Body, His body cannot be separated from the entire Christ. The same is true when the words “This is my Blood” are said. If I said to you, “Give me your hand,” the rest of you would have to come with it. The same thing applies at the Consecration at Mass.

Posted by Carrie on Monday, Nov, 19, 2012 12:28 PM (EST):

Thank you! I love your informative posts!

Posted by Corey on Monday, Nov, 19, 2012 10:03 AM (EST):

@Annemarie - You might want to check out the following: http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/jesus-yahweh-the-name-above-every-name/

Another good resource that I know Jimmy would approve of: http://www.catholic.com/radio/shows/how-to-answer-jehovahs-witnesses-and-mormons-3p921

Posted by Kathleen on Monday, Nov, 19, 2012 9:54 AM (EST):

I remember reading that the prohibition was to instill a reverence for life. Not mixing meat & dairy was to instill a tenderness for life(not cooking a lamb in the milk of its mother,etc.)The ritual purification laws for women after childbirth, etc have the same origin. It was a reverence for life & life giving, not a disdain for women.
If you read Jewish commentaries on the subject it’s very interesting & informative.As Christians I think we tend to take some preconceptions into Old Testament teaching.
Where I live, some folks still make a black pudding, too…

Posted by Annemarie on Monday, Nov, 19, 2012 9:34 AM (EST):

Thank you for posting this! We’ve been getting visited by several Jehovah Witnesses (practicing our apologetics!), and this claim about not consuming blood comes up so frequently! Everytime we bring them back to the Bread of Life discourse,they insist that Christ could have never forced his Apostles to do something that was contrary to the religious laws they lived by. So this article is refreshing. On that note they are coming back next week and want to talk about the tetragrammaton? But we’ve been having difficulty finding resources on refuting those claims. Any advice or any tips on dealing with JW?

Posted by CathDisciple on Monday, Nov, 19, 2012 8:38 AM (EST):

For me, I don’t think Acts 15 stands in contrast to anything but rather falls right in line with the very Biblical basis that the Church has the authority to bind and loose. I understand that in our dialog with Protestants, we have to frame the argument in ways they can understand, but it all comes down to authority. This is how I explain it to my Protestant friends who question certain Catholic practices as unbiblical. I first explain where they first may have a different interpretation of the biblical sense such as with the all-male priesthood. Jesus chose twelve men for Apostles as an indication that he meant for this aspect of the old law to continue. I then explain that as indicated by Acts, certain practices were promoted by the early Church in order to deal with the Jewish/Gentile interaction. Practices can be changed to fit the times. The critical distinction is in understanding what is practice and what is dogma. The main point, however, is that it is the Church in the Book of Acts that is the one that gets to decide. Everyone else must follow.

As an aside and I don’t think Jimmy meant for this post to cover this, but I love when Protestants draw on this argument to contradict the Eucharist. Leviticus 17 actually did not pass away but came to its fulfillment. It is still true, only in a different way. We drink of the Cup of The Lord for this very reason. The life is in the blood. If you want the life of Christ in you, you must drink His Blood and He will raise you up on the last day. The underlying truth of Leviticus 17 and Deut 12 is precisely Jesus’ response to the naysayers in John 6:53-54. Contrast John 6:53-54 with Leviticus 17:14 and you will see that Jesus is elevating this understanding to a new height.

Posted by Joachim Licameli on Monday, Nov, 19, 2012 12:20 AM (EST):

The Grand Harmony restaurant at 98 Mott Street, Manhattan (Chinatown) is an excellent dim sum house and worth a visit. When I was there with a friend we saw something on one of the carts that looked like cubes of chocolate pudding. We asked a waiter what it was and he told us. On my next visit, when the cubes came to my table, I pointed to them, and the little old lady pushing cart exclaimed, “No-no-no-no-no! NO-NO-NO-NO-NO!!” I said, “I know what it is, and I want to taste it.” She needed a little more convincing, but she gave the customer what he wanted. The pudding cubes were cooked with pieces of scallion and ginger and in a lightly thickened chicken stock. It had the texture of very soft gelatin and the faint flavor of a scab. So I tried it: steamed duck’s blood. There are scarier things to eat. 8=;{)

Posted by Jeff Moore on Monday, Nov, 19, 2012 12:19 AM (EST):

I am somewhat conflicted about your take on Acts 15. I often point to the results of the Council of Jerusalem as /the/ answer for Christians as to what carries over from the Old Law and what does not. This is especially effective in modern day issues because of the “unchastity/fornication” bit, since that allows us to carry over, in a Scriptually sound manner, the Levitical prohibitions against homosexual and incestual acts, without having to worry about whether we are mixing our wools with our cottons.

Anyway, point is, I feel like limiting the prohibitions of the Council of Jerusalem by saying they only applied to the time uses the same logic that has led many Protestant groups to chip away at things like the all-male priesthood and even the nature of marriage, since they claim the same “context of the time” arguments for those issues, too.

I do find your lack-of-Church-prohibition argument somewhat compelling (I will have to give it some thought), but that might be due more to negligence than a deliberate decision. I would need some better information on how many cultures were actually consuming blood at the time of our greatest theologians (i.e. Augustine and Aquinas) and how much consumption originated from later culture developments or encounters (e.g. the discovery of the New World).

David: I’m sure it would be delicious! *If* you served it to me without telling me what it is. :-)

Posted by David Nicoll on Sunday, Nov, 18, 2012 11:30 PM (EST):

Black Pudding is lovely - serves as part of a “full English breakfast” or with bacon in a sandwich, with ketchup. Yummy.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

The time period for commenting on this article has expired.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant pastor or seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith. Eventually, he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, “A Triumph and a Tragedy,” is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on “Catholic Answers Live.”